SCOTUS case Texas V. White or why states can't secede

[link to en.wikipedia.org] Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

IMO they still got the right to secede... but they gonna have to fight for it...

In the nuclear age, they could secede and tell Washington DC to not move or Washington DC will be turned to glass.

[link to en.wikipedia.org] Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

IMO they still got the right to secede... but they gonna have to fight for it...

In the nuclear age, they could secede and tell Washington DC to not move or Washington DC will be turned to glass.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27563645

Well, what the hell do you expect the SCOTUS to rule? The War of Federal Aggression was over and the FEDERAL government won.

After the Federal Government slaughters, rapes, burns, starves, tortures and destroys hundreds of thousands, you really think any Supreme court Judge was going to rule against them?

To do so would have meant summery execution.

The War criminals won, to think the SCOTUS then or today would actually stand up for the Constitution or States rights is laughable.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, that was a victor's ruling and had it been handed down during the actual war (an impossible situation, and not germane to the details of the case, but this requires a stretch...) it would have held no weight.

TEXAS certainly considered themselves to have left the Union. This post-Civil War rewriting of history to achieve a political and monetary gain really has no bearing on our present reality.

The argument that "Texas can't secede because the Supreme Court in 1869 said they couldn't (nor could any other state)" would devolve to that of 12 dead men vs. an active and angry state. It is a pointless argument. It is like arguing with the weather.

Besides, a very valid argument can be made that "Texas v. White" is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the text of the Declaration of Independence.

If Obama (or anyone, really) holds up and waves a copy of "Texas v. White", and Texas holds up and waves back with the Declaration of Independence, which do you think is the more important, more powerful document?

The innate rights of a self-governing people say "Texas v. White", as a practicality, is hogwash.

Also, if you want to get prickly about it, "Texas v. White" was about a claim made by the post-war, Federally-imposed Reconstruction government of Texas regarding some US bonds owned by Texas, therefore their additional holding - based merely upon accepting original jurisdiction - that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede could easily be revisited as having been an abuse of due process committed by an activist court, and had really nothing to do with the merits of the case.

In other words, having just won a bloody and brutal war, and wanting to prevent a relapse, it looks like the court took an unrelated but available opportunity to unilaterally impose their will, and in effect legislate from the bench.

I certainly don't blame them for having that mindset, and I'm quite glad the Union won the civil war. But bad case law is bad case law, and even if it was ROCK SOLID it would not matter in the least if secession efforts get strongly underway.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, that was a victor's ruling and had it been handed down during the actual war (an impossible situation, and not germane to the details of the case, but this requires a stretch...) it would have held no weight.

TEXAS certainly considered themselves to have left the Union. This post-Civil War rewriting of history to achieve a political and monetary gain really has no bearing on our present reality.

The argument that "Texas can't secede because the Supreme Court in 1869 said they couldn't (nor could any other state)" would devolve to that of 12 dead men vs. an active and angry state. It is a pointless argument. It is like arguing with the weather.

Besides, a very valid argument can be made that "Texas v. White" is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the text of the Declaration of Independence.

If Obama (or anyone, really) holds up and waves a copy of "Texas v. White", and Texas holds up and waves back with the Declaration of Independence, which do you think is the more important, more powerful document?

The innate rights of a self-governing people say "Texas v. White", as a practicality, is hogwash.

Also, if you want to get prickly about it, "Texas v. White" was about a claim made by the post-war, Federally-imposed Reconstruction government of Texas regarding some US bonds owned by Texas, therefore their additional holding - based merely upon accepting original jurisdiction - that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede could easily be revisited as having been an abuse of due process committed by an activist court, and had really nothing to do with the merits of the case.

In other words, having just won a bloody and brutal war, and wanting to prevent a relapse, it looks like the court took an unrelated but available opportunity to unilaterally impose their will, and in effect legislate from the bench.

I certainly don't blame them for having that mindset, and I'm quite glad the Union won the civil war. But bad case law is bad case law, and even if it was ROCK SOLID it would not matter in the least if secession efforts get strongly underway.

Quoting: Shelgeyr

I think people have pointed to Texas vs White when it comes to debunking people who claim (Incorrectly) that Texas has some special clause that lets it leave the union leagaly. Obviously if all the people in Texas are dead set on leaving the union, no law is going to stop them.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...” (Thomas Jefferson)

Well, considering the Supreme Court, we are already 2 out of 3 conscerning Life, Liberty, and the pursuite of happiness. (1). The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that a new life in it's Mother's stomach can be killed. (2). The Supreme Court recently sold out and said Obama Care is legal, which will affect everyone's liberty for years to come.

very simple call for a vote on secession in congress per state if congress approves secession in a vote equal to granting statehood they that state has seceded.

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, that was a victor's ruling and had it been handed down during the actual war (an impossible situation, and not germane to the details of the case, but this requires a stretch...) it would have held no weight.

TEXAS certainly considered themselves to have left the Union. This post-Civil War rewriting of history to achieve a political and monetary gain really has no bearing on our present reality.

The argument that "Texas can't secede because the Supreme Court in 1869 said they couldn't (nor could any other state)" would devolve to that of 12 dead men vs. an active and angry state. It is a pointless argument. It is like arguing with the weather.

Besides, a very valid argument can be made that "Texas v. White" is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the text of the Declaration of Independence.

If Obama (or anyone, really) holds up and waves a copy of "Texas v. White", and Texas holds up and waves back with the Declaration of Independence, which do you think is the more important, more powerful document?

The innate rights of a self-governing people say "Texas v. White", as a practicality, is hogwash.

Also, if you want to get prickly about it, "Texas v. White" was about a claim made by the post-war, Federally-imposed Reconstruction government of Texas regarding some US bonds owned by Texas, therefore their additional holding - based merely upon accepting original jurisdiction - that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede could easily be revisited as having been an abuse of due process committed by an activist court, and had really nothing to do with the merits of the case.

In other words, having just won a bloody and brutal war, and wanting to prevent a relapse, it looks like the court took an unrelated but available opportunity to unilaterally impose their will, and in effect legislate from the bench.

I certainly don't blame them for having that mindset, and I'm quite glad the Union won the civil war. But bad case law is bad case law, and even if it was ROCK SOLID it would not matter in the least if secession efforts get strongly underway.

Quoting: Shelgeyr

I think people have pointed to Texas vs White when it comes to debunking people who claim (Incorrectly) that Texas has some special clause that lets it leave the union leagaly. Obviously if all the people in Texas are dead set on leaving the union, no law is going to stop them.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9266723

^^That^^

.. and many other states will domino in behind them

One observation I do have is this:

States wanting to secede are doing so because they wish to live by the US Constitution. With that said, why do they have to secede? Why not boot out the blue states that want their socialist system? It could be argued that the blue states have already seceded & are trying to force their agenda down the throats of the rest of the country.

Life is karma and karma always reflects both past and present circumstance. Our time here is short, so choose carefully and behave well, for all of your tomorrows are presently being decided.

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."-- William Shakespeare, born April 23, 1564.

[link to en.wikipedia.org] Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

IMO they still got the right to secede... but they gonna have to fight for it...

In the nuclear age, they could secede and tell Washington DC to not move or Washington DC will be turned to glass.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27563645

If you doodles have been following any with this administration, the constitution no longer exists. It's null and void. Maybe the peeps can write their own executive order and make the changes that way..;)